Hacker News Reader

Comment by stickyricky | Hacker News Reader

I go to the bank and get cash. Businesses accept that cash for goods and services. I observe no difference in my social media habits because I do not use Meta products.

View on HN

Good for you, Mr. Exception-to-the-rule. (Btw, the same is true for me too).

And me. So your "exception" hypothesis is getting weaker :)

You've really got me thinking.

Is there a word for that thing when "everyone knows" what they think "everyone is doing", but once they start to dig deeper it turns out nobody really is? Everyone is pretending to, because they think that's what everybody should say and do?

Mass delusion? Group fallacy? Fashion? Groupthink? None quite capture it.

Sample bias. HN crowd != people I know in real life.

I think what's happening here is selection bias. The people who proudly have no Meta accounts are replying to each other saying "me too". The hundreds of others who were reading did not reply.

Sample bias is a thing, sure.

I'm alluding to something a bit more interesting, I hope.

We don't have a way to test those hundreds of voices comprising the supposed silent majority. I'm saying that when/(BIG if) one does - via some hitherto undevised ingenious experiment which always yields truth - we find that no... in fact everyone is at best ambivalent, but mostly going along with what they think the majority view is.

I'm sure there's a name/concept for this in group dynamics.

Consensus mythology? (I'm just making that up)

A hallmark is that interrogating the group yields one answer, but each individual considered privately will give you a very different answer.

But it's not "group-think" I'm talking about, because that implies a more overt pressure. Rather it emerges in the absence of coordination amongst an implied majority when there exists a loud propaganda message designating some other group a minority.

I think this effect has important implications in the kind of 50:50 + swing elections we've seen over the past few years. For example, in Brexit, a mass of lethargic voters assumed "everyone will vote against" and didn't verify the reality by asking lots of diverse friends. It's not that people are trapped in actual bubbles so much as bubbles of their own mind based on assumptions about those around them.

Sorry, that's probably a long and clumsy way of saying something obvious.

"Consensus mythology"

in philosophy it is known as heterophenomenolgy hetero = same, phenomenology = experience

Thanks gg, that's an interesting lead.

I see what you're getting at. I do know that many people, when asked about Whatsapp (especially parents complaining about the "obligatory" school Whatsapp groups), wish they didn't have to use it. I'm not sure how serious that sentiment is, or if they really would wish that if they understood the consequences, but as an experiment I have been attempting various community organisation projects that explicitly do not use Whatsapp. They've been quite successful, so far! We have just started co-ordinating a monthly kid's play session in our street, and I have a regular biking group.

Just go and get cash during a bank run. How hard can that be?

That wasn't provided as a condition. In a bank run, Visa's existence or non-existence is irrelevant. Credit is frozen.

Do you really think Visa and Meta could go under without causing a bank run?

By "Visa" do you mean "all payment clearing houses" and by Meta do you mean "all social media"?

Because if Visa shits itself (it has) I use Amex, Mastercard, cash, debit, or even checks.

And if Meta shits itself I don't even notice except to make fun of it.

Think about the situation for a second. You'll be switching to other methods, and so will everyone else, all at once. Do Amex and Mastercard even have the capacity to take up the slack with no notice? Do you really think that every critical component of a cost-optimised system will have been over-provisioned to be able to take on hundreds of millions of additional customers in a single day? And if one fails, the demand switches to the remainder and crashes them too. It's a classic cascade failure.

I suspect it would take up the slack - depending on how the failure happened and when it happened.

I don't believe payment processors have the same number of payments every second, so Amex and MC have to be sized for the largest spike (+ some) that they can endure, and so unless Visa fell right when they were already maxed out, they'd likely continue.

And Visa has fallen before; if it was anything like a long-term failure, you know all the other processors would be spinning up as much extra capacity as they could. And many stores still have the paper machines for credit slips.

https://www.wired.com/story/visa-outage-shows-the-fragility-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com